The Carbon Tax Is Good for Canadians. Why Axe It?
The Carbon Tax Is Good for Canadians. Why Axe It?
Pierre Poilievre’s sloganeering is based on a false premise. But the Liberals fumbled a smart policy
The year 2023 was by far the warmest in human history. Climate extremes now routinely shock in their intensity, with a direct monetary cost that borders on the unfathomable. Over $3 trillion (US) in damages to infrastructure, property, agriculture, and human health have already slammed the world economy this century, owing to extreme weather. That number will likely pale in comparison to what is coming. The World Economic Forum, hardly a hotbed of environmental activists, now reports that global damage from climate change will probably cost some $1.7 trillion to $3.1 trillion (US) per year by 2050, with the lion’s share of the damage borne by the poorest countries in the world.
And yet we fiddle.
In today’s Canada, there is deception, national in scope, coming directly from the right‑wing opposition benches in Ottawa. In 2023, the populist Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre adopted “Axe the tax” as his new mantra and has shaped his federal election campaign around that hackneyed rhyme.
You're viewing a single thread.
Why Axe It?
Because if people don't want it, democracy could give us something worse than no carbon tax - politicians that would kill it and increase emissions.
The carbon tax may be "most efficient" from free-market economist point of view but that view itself disregards the political externalities which could upend the whole equation over the long term.
If the carbon tax is felt unfairly by the majority then a different scheme should be implemented that doesn't feel this way. For example, if most people are getting what they paid in carbon tax and some even more, then instead of insisting on a broad market approach, exclude individuals from the scheme. Tax only firms, perhaps over certain size or over certain emissions. When it comes to individuals, perhaps invest public money in creating cheap alternatives for individuals. Like I don't know, massively expand public transit. Build high speed rail. We can't build a single fucking LRT line in Canada's biggest city for 15 years now and the TTC has been running on a shoestring for at least that long. You're trying to achieve these things with the carbon tax anyway (shifting behaviour to lower carbon options) but it matters how people feel about the means to the end. If they feel punished and especially if they feel punished with no alternative then they'll give you Polinever and the whole scheme goes down the trash chute.
Speaking of majorities, given FPTP "a majority" here could be as little as 39% so a plurality is more accurate.
Also I'm not trying to absolve the reformacons from responsibility of their fuckery in all regards discussed in this thread. They're objecitvely making all of these problems worse.
Because if people don't want it,
Most people, once the details of how it really works are understood, are not against the carbon pricing system.
Part of the problem is that the public are being lied to by right wing voices, and hold false understandings of what is really happening.
Spoke with 2 co-workers the other day about the Carbon Tax Refund. Both said it was bullshit and neither were receiving anything.
I said bullshit, check your 'My CRA' and it'll be there.
Turns out one guy owes $6K so his carbon tax refund is paying that off and the other's wife is collecting it as only 1 person per household can receive it.
Both clueless but both were very vocal about something they don't understand. We're truly fucked as a species.
And this is why I went down this hypothetical. Perhaps doing transit subsidies and buildouts, heavy EV subsidies would be something most would see and understand. And I'm talking about heavy subsidies, not something I significant that's not noticeable.
I completely understand, but don't you see that the lack of self-evidence is an inherent weakness of the scheme which allows the cons to easily weaponize it? Unless we enact some form of censorship on what certain actors can say (factuality, etc), which I'm not opposed to, I don't see how you fix that. Perhaps the current carbon scheme is not sustainable, even if it works economically. If replacing this policy with something more self-evident is the magic bullet to curb Polinever's enthusiasm, I'd be 100% for it, because he'll also get rid of it and do worse in other fronts. "Axe The Tax" is leading by 19% and 27% points at the moment. Clearly this shit resonates. I'd be curious to see what would happen if we took away the axe. Perhaps you believe the knowledge gap can be filled instead. I'm skeptical.
That's hardly a reason to get rid of it or replace it. Clearly people are benefitting from it and it's evident if you look at your tax return. If anything, the fact that people don't know about the return is a failure in marketing. So sure, there are maybe some improvements to make.
But really, no matter what carbon scheme you put in place, the cons will find a way to complain about it. That's not a failure of the carbon tax. That's just how the conservatives operate.
Oh they'll complain no doubt but I can much more easily sell to my average intelligent relatives that they'll be able to get to work without a car or go visit the extended family in Montreal without driving or flying. The cons line will be "too much spending" which only works if there's nothing to show for it. If most people are getting or expecting to get something (e.g. EVs for drivers, transit for the rest of us) that argument goes limp.
... the lack of self-evidence is an inherent weakness of the scheme which allows the cons to easily weaponize it
That is a weakness in Cons, not the carbon tax. Can you list 5 positive planks in the Con platform that promise universal benefits to all of us?
I can't. And that's because they don't know how to do that, except by removing benefits from the regular folk so the rich can get richer.
That's who they serve.
Clearly this shit resonates.
Simplistic slogans do tend to take less effort to understand that more complex and nuanced understanding of big issues.